I can do so with western cameras too.A Zenit is one of the worst cameras I have ever handled. You can see all the way round the pentaprism when you look through the viewfinder ...
I can do so with western cameras too.
I think the A series did too, from looking through them and not being able to see any reflections.Yep.
The Canon F-1 has a special prism between the main prism and the eyeprism to prevent these reflections. I have seen it... interesting device.
I think the takeaway here is that the quality did indeed vary to an absurd extent, since the wind-on on mine sounds just alright.I can do so with western cameras too.
And at least my Zenits have got no issue with the shit of deteriorarting light-seal foam-rubber.
And why then was the Zenit series one of the most sold SLRs ever? Because people bought it. Because they wanted it.
Including West-Germans.
Hmm... I think mine was made in Kraznogorsk, but I could be wrong. The other one was in Belarus?We should not overlook that at least the E-model was manufactured (to my understanding not just assembled) by two different firms, already visible in some design details.
Yep. The Canon F-1 has a special prism between the main prism and the eyeprism to prevent these reflections. I have seen it... interesting device.
I know... I just tried to fix an Edixa Reflex.To be fair, the west-german camera industry had their SLR fiascos too...
Was the Edixa not an overpriced unreliable mess?With fiascos I rather meant expensive SLR developments that failed at the market. But in one case such camera intended as high-end model completely failed in a test.
Early production, original F-1's did have this prism. Sometime during production, Canon removed it. The prism was quite effective in reducing secondary reflections in the viewfinder, but also made the viewfinder image a bit darker. One of several things Canon did to improve viewfinder brightness for the original F-1.
Jim B.
Yes, the framing of the viewfinder was one of the characteristics carried down from the first Zenits. A 50 feels like a 70.I used a Zenit E with an Helios44 lens once, and when developping the film noticed that I got much more on it than the framing that I remembered.
Actually, the size of the groundglass of these cameras was about 19x28mm instead of 24x36 (and it was indeed confessed in the manual).
Some years after, at a vintage camera fair, I bought a Spotmatic for 8€ and a Helios44 lens for 1€. Together, they compose a nice shooter.
POLKa
I used a Zenit E with an Helios44 lens once, and when developping the film noticed that I got much more on it than the framing that I remembered.
Actually, the size of the groundglass of these cameras was about 19x28mm instead of 24x36 (and it was indeed confessed in the manual).
Some years after, at a vintage camera fair, I bought a Spotmatic for 8€ and a Helios44 lens for 1€. Together, they compose a nice shooter.
POLKa
Actually, the size of the groundglass of these cameras was about 19x28mm instead of 24x36
I think all of the above, plus the greater magnification it allows possible?Many cameras do not have 24x36 but 23x35mm viewing area.
The official viewing area for the Zenit series is 20x28mm.
The reason for this ???
-) safety margin with slides?
-) safety margin in assembly?
-) reducing size of prism?
None of them are convincing to me.
I find those reasons more convincing than a format change--after all, as you say, it was based on a Zorki! Surely they wouldn't adapt Zorki to an SLR AND another format at once!As said above those 3 reasons do not convince me at all.
The only reason I see are the given dimensions of the Zorki, which was the basis of the Zenit.
If so, then why not enlarge these dimensions by a few millimeters??
Or the Zenit had first been planned for a slightly smaller film format, but then was bored-out so to say, but klinging to the too small groundglass and prism.
I find those reasons more convincing than a format change--after all, as you say, it was based on a Zorki! Surely they wouldn't adapt Zorki to an SLR AND another format at once!
I think a prime factor would be the cost of the glass elements (GG and condenser especially) as well as the size concern... remember that very few full frame SLR's ever succeeded in being nearly as small as the original Zenit--Olympus OM and Pentax M series come to mind but little else. Even Nikon never made one quite as small. I think Zenit has them all beat for size, but obviously not for anything else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?